The President Doesn't Have a "Right of Visit and Search"

 The "right of visit and search" that President Trump is declaring he has to search innocent vessels is a right only extended during a war. The U.S. Congress is the only American entity that can declare war on a nation, and it has not declared war on Iran. It could be argued NATO also has this right, but most of the NATO countries do not support a war with Iran. Any visiting and searching of vessels that our Navy does will be done illegally. Oh, and although pirate ships also fall under this right, if we board any ship and it isn't a pirate ship, we have to make compensation to that ships owners and nation.

Some Americans have jumped on the "no nuclear enrichment for Iran" without apparently realizing that this would mean Iran can't use nuclear power. It would also mean Iran could not establish data centers, among other things--but presumably if they did this they would be more intelligent and limit theirs, unlike the U.S., which has 4000+ (no other country has 1/10 that). 

When will other countries realize that this is all about money and stock manipulation (see my other post). Leaders like Netanyahu and Trump, who have no hope of being re-elected are grasping at straws and hoping to at least make themselves a nice nest egg before they must permanently leave politics. The U.S., unfortunately, has no laws against our elected leaders dabbling in the stock market and doing insider trading--it's only those under them. 

The U.S. didn't want Russia to get nuclear bombs either. Our leaders told us it would be the end of the world because those crazy Russians would kill us. Thus, the decades long Cold War. 

Ironically, of the nine countries who have nuclear bombs, the United States is the only one to use one and they some how have justified the fact that they only used it on civilian populations who were completely unsuspecting and who had no bomb warnings or shelters that could protect them. This is similar to how we convinced Americans that it was a great thing we were able to destroy an Iranian ship--their best ship, without expanding on the fact that the only reason that ship was there was because it was participating in war games with the United States and was there under a peace treaty. No, we shot them in the back as soon as they were heading home, while they were completely unsuspecting. We are just like Epstein--we play a simple war game and make other countries think we're just a friendly country before screwing them. 

In actuality, the only thing Russia getting nuclear weapons did was stop us from using them again. Granted, with our trigger happy President and his henchman Hegseth, we may start bombing everyone again. We are already only hurting civilians in Iran, just as Israel is primarily targeting civilians in Palestine and Lebanon. Israel is absolutely correct in that the world has forgotten the history of WWII. Now, just as then, Hitler was allowed to do what he wanted and took over SEVERAL countries before the rest of the world even told him to stop!! That is exactly what Israel and the United States are doing while everyone looks the other way. 

NATO Helps a Global Criminal Control Ukraine

 

By sanctioning Russia and sending weapons to Ukraine, we are helping this global criminal, to whom Hunter Biden has connections, control an entire country? (note, the citations are from U.S. newspapers):

“Igor Kolomoisky, who built his fortune during the lawless years immediately following the fall of the Soviet Union, reportedly has a controlling interest in Burisma, the Ukrainian oil and gas company which put President Biden’s son, Hunter, on its board of directors in 2014 at a salary of $50,000 per month. Kolomoisky dispatched his private army to take over companies and destroy a Russian-owned oil and gas refinery in Dnipropetrovsk in 2014, according to reports.” 

Kolomoisky also owns 70% interest in 1+1, which is the television station that ran Zelensky’s television show and paid for him to get into office with money Kolomoiaky stole from his own bank and hid in oversees accounts—that Zelensky had interest in but handed off to a buddy upon his election—however, Zelensky (perfect leader that he is) stillgets profits from those overseas accounts through his wife. 

Also, “after Mr Kolomoisky deployed hispersonal militia in Kiev to block the government from regulating his businessinterests, the [former] president [Petro Poroshenko] had no choice but to sackhim.” So, Kolomoisky made sure Poroshenko was no longer president by running Zelensky instead. Kolomoisky, a person of Jewish descent like Zelensky, allegedly funds theAzov Battalion, Aidar and other Neo-Nazi groups. At least one member of the Azov Battalion believes that once the war with Russia is over they will march on Kyiv and oust the government and wasn’tafraid to brag about this to USA today in 2015. 

Our own current secretary of state, Antony Blinken stated, “I also want toexpress concern about Kolomoyskyy’s current and ongoing efforts to undermineUkraine’s democratic processes and institutions, which pose a serious threat toits future.” 

 Ukraine is anything but a freely democratic country. Its people are fighting for it, but freely admit the corruption that is there. They are fighting for it because they are defending their country, and the west keeps telling them the lie that Russia is going to take it from them. NATO is responsible for the innocent citizens who are killed--not Russia. The United States is responsible for setting up a corrupt regime in 2014--as it has done in every other country it invaded and overthrew the government (Libya, Kosovo, Egypt, Vietnam, Korea, etc.) Just because our tactics have changed, and we now use social media and "community organizers" (read: professional riot starters) does not mean we are just in our actions. 

 This time, supplying neo-Nazis and going against Russia, is going to be our final downfall, I believe. While Russia is forming tighter bonds with China (who hasn't foolishly contributed any of its military to the Ukraine conflict), the west as a whole under NATO is dumping weapons and arms into a country that will NEVER pay them back. As we deplete our stockpiles and prevent agreed upon shipments of weapons from going to places like Taiwan because we are redistributing them to the puppets in Ukraine, we are severing ties and making ourselves militarily vulnerable. It will take decades to rebuild what we have already sent--and we are not showing signs of stopping, we are just digging into more stockpiles we may find ourselves in need of in the future.

Stop these criminal supporting warlords from destroying our country over this. Vote for anyone but a Democrat or Republican!

Ukraine Idiocy

 

Long before Tucker Carlson decided to speak out against the war with Russia our current government encouraged, I was speaking out against our idiocy. In fact, I started speaking out back when President Obama was in office and the United Stated funded the overthrow of the rightful UkrainianPresident who had been elected in a U.N. supervised election. We overthrew that leader just as we have helped to overthrow numerous leaders in sham “elections” throughout the world—and when our behind the scenes dirty deeds don’t work, we use military force.

I spoke out because we started this thing with Russia and then conveniently gave Hunter Biden a job. (He is unemployable in the United States because he was dishonorably discharged under an officer’s “general” discharge since he had done cocaine a few months after manipulating the system to ignore his previous cocaine use and age and let him into the military.) However, while in office, it seems the Former President Trump, who was trying to dig up dirt on Hunter and the current President, discovered that many upper-level officials were making dirty money in Ukraine. Unfortunately, the former President didn't see the danger or his precarious position because he had all this dirt--perhaps until it was too late. 

Just as COVID-19 “miraculously” appeared on the scene and gave the government a chance to make former President Trump look like a fool by contradicting him in an Orwellian manner: CDC et al.-don’t wear masks they can’t protect you…Trump-Don’t wear masks … CDC et al.-Wear masks! …Trump: But I thought masks can’t protect me from it, that’s what you just told me… CDC et al.: They protect others, not you, you idiot! President Trump will kill us if he stays President!

Now, I never liked President Trump, although I admit he did some good things, he also did some bad things. But replacing one big-mouthed idiot with another one is not a change. Unfortunately, Democrats made certain third party candidates did not have a chance in the 2020 elections.

The thing is that those in higher up positions who have dirty Ukrainian hands have realized that they have to destroy Ukraine if they want to cover their tracks… or at least let the Russians get the data hidden there so they can say the Russians faked it. But the problem is that they are willing to destroy America to protect their own skin. That is unacceptable. People need to vote for third parties and ONLY third parties this fall. We need to return our current feudalist society to a democracy. Keep money at home for those who need it instead of spending $40 BILLION on weapons we are giving to Ukraine under the guise they will "pay us back." You don't give away money to someone when your own children are hungry. You don't help another country fight a war when your own country is falling apart.

The United States Democrats Orchestrated the Largest Human Rights Violation and Voter Fraud in History--and It HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH COUNTING VOTES

 The Freedom of Speech is an American's first amendment right. In past years, "fact checkers" have sprung up everywhere. Now, originally THE fact checking organization was Snopes, but even they started to have problems. Fact checking organizations were, for the most part, harmless when it came to free speech. People still had the right to speak out and say what they believed and those reading or hearing their message were able to do their own fact checking using their preferred fact checking organization. 

By freedom of speech, anyone should have the ability to say anything about anyone else, unless what they say is a direct threat to another person. For example, a person who says "I want to kill XXX" should be investigated. Detailed plans on how to kill yourself or others should also be removed. 

The problem with this election is that the Democrats moved direct threats into a gray area. It started with COVID-19--no one, even scientists who have for centuries been openly debating ideas as a part of the scientific process, was allowed to publicly say anything different from the mainstream because it "might" put someone's lives at risk. The problem is that the CDC stopped putting out good information and started putting out garbage--even going against National Academy of Sciences advice on masks. Once this freedom of Speech was taken away without any formal protests, it moved to the next level.

Nancy Pelosi told FB and other social media to censor President Trump if he made ANY negative statements about her or other female Democrats because they would interpret that as direct attacks on women. This took away President Trump's freedom of speech, and as it has always been, once they took away someone's right to free speech they began to expand that power. FB and other agencies employed "fact checkers" that selectively silenced not only President Trump's voice, but also the voices of many Republicans. It is for this reason that I refused to vote for a single Democrat this year--a first to the best of my knowledge. I refuse to support a party that prohibits free Speech. 

How can you run for a political office without being allowed to say anything inflammatory about the other side or good about the things you have done especially when the other side is allowed to tell whatever lies they want about you? This is one reason why the Democrats thought they would win by a landslide. The problem is they did not stop their Human Rights violations there. 

The Democrats then petitioned to get the Green Party and Socialist Parties off the ballots in several states. In the case of Pennsylvania, the Green Party collected more than the required signatures in time (8,000+ when they only needed 5,000). The signature of the elected vice-president was not on an affidavit switching her out for the stand in vice president. Now, either this woman should have been allowed a chance to sign the paper or the stand in vice president should have gone on the ballot. Instead, the Democrats and the Democrat controlled Pennsylvania Supreme Court refused to allow the Green Party Ballot Access. Ballot Access is already a trampled right in America. In Wisconsin, it was even worse. The Green Party filed a lawsuit 2 weeks after being told they could not be on the ballot there, and the judge threw it out because it wasn't filed in a "timely" manner. For most other things, you have at least 30 days to file against things. Michigan locked down, and when the Socialist Party asked to have the 30,000 required signatures reduced because of the difficulty of collecting during lockdown, they were denied this request. Democrats and Republicans in Michigan only had to get less than 12,000 signatures to be on the ballot.

American Political Third-Parties need equal access to ALL BALLOTS. There needs to be a federal law stating that (1) it is illegal to deny access to any party who has not previously appeared on a ballot and (2) all political parties must be subject to the SAME ballot laws. Unfortunately, Democrats were elected by their blind followers. 

Unfortunately, Democrats are still blind to the fact that the Democrat party has decided to trample rights akin to China. Chinese people do not get to vote because they only have one party for whom they can vote. Democrats denying ballot access is a step in that direction. Chinese people do not have freedom of Speech. They are not allowed to say anything against the ruling party. 

Now, before you argue that the Republicans are equally bad you should know (1) Republicans helped pay court fees so the Green Party could fight to get back on the ballot in court and (Republicans did not try to get Libertarians off the ballot until it was too late (i.e. they started the process after getting the idea from Democrats). 

As long as people continue to support Republican and Democrat nominees and their myriad of laws against third parties, Americans will never get a choice. Third parties have been getting more and more of the vote and in some cases beating Democrat challengers. These partisan laws need to be removed from the books and equal ballot access needs to be required throughout the United States. Third-parties need to start at lower levels (which are even more difficult to get ballot access for). They need to challenge unfair discrimination in ballot access laws in court. It is not a coincidence that once third parties started getting significant numbers Democrats decided to remove them and Republicans followed suit. 

Snopes: Forgetting How to Fact-Check Again

 Oh, Snopes, what a tangled web of lies you weave sometimes. You admit Hunter Biden was "dismissed" as an officer, but then say that is "most likely" a "general discharge."  False. Hunter Biden stated he had an administrative discharge, but he also seems to have lost everything as if he had been court martialed and dismissed. The "dismissal" of an officer is the equivalent to a dishonorable discharge. Officers cannot be dishonorably discharged--only "dismissed." "If an officer is convicted by a General Court-Martial, then that officer's sentence can include a "dismissal." This is considered to be the same as a dishonorable discharge." Further, if Hunter Biden resigned before his court martial, he would have been given an administrative discharge that was Other Than Honorable (which is similar to a dishonorable discharge but not as severe). If he received a "general" administrative discharge, this would draw some scrutiny, especially since others in the military have served 19 years honorably, tested positive for cocaine once and were not only dishonorably discharged, but also jailed. But with the military sealing the records, we will probably never know if Joe asked former President Obama (as head of the military) to pull a few strings for his son. That's right: the military has not released any details about the discharge Hunter received. Ironically, if Hunter had been court martialed, President Obama could have been the judge, sealed the records, and Hunter could have said anything he wanted about his discharge. President Trump, however, does have access to those records, so it blows my mind Snopes would feel they can fact-check his statement accurately. Fact checking requires finding original documents to support or disavow the claim. Snopes did not have access to any documents and merely gave their opinion on the matter based on Hunter Biden's own claims.

If Joe wouldn't have found a job in Ukraine for Hunter, his boy probably wouldn't have been able to afford any more cocaine since his discharge had civilian effects apparently similar to the dishonorable or "other than honorable" discharge. Granted, Hunter Biden managed to jump through many walls that normal people could not have just to join the military the way he did. At the time, I wanted an investigation into whether the whole war in Ukraine was because Hunter needed a job after his "dismissal. It was all too convenient in my opinion especially with documented inappropriate US interference. Why don't people care that while making $80,000+ per MONTH in Ukraine that Hunter stated he couldn't afford to pay child support to an out-of-wedlock kid he had in court? Please Democrats, you love to jump on everything the President does wrong, why don't you let Joe's faults come out, too... oh, I forgot. You don't support free speech. I don't understand how you are okay with Joe getting a job for his son numerous times but you are also okay with Joe locking down the country again and putting millions of hard-working Americans out of work--perhaps permanently.

If You Want to Stop COVID-19, Should You Vote Republican or Democrat?

 So, Joe Biden has said if he is elected, COVID-19 will go away. President Trump has stated similar things. Since Republicans AND Democrats are both saying they handled the pandemic better, I decided to FACT CHECK THEM. I looked at state populations, whether the state had a Democrat or Republican governor, COVID-19 case-fatality rates per state, cases per population, and deaths from COVID-19 per population. Guess what? There was NO STATISTICAL DIFFERENCE in any of these values whether you were living in a Republican or Democrat states. All Democrat controlled states locked down, but one Democrat state does not require masks, so policies were mixed across states.

The most concerning thing is that if we look at overall deaths in the United States last year and compare them to deaths this year they are much, much higher. Our increase in deaths from all causes (COVID-19, suicides, heart disease) is 25% higher THAN ANY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. Why? Well, because we Americans have the unfortunate problem of being in a wicked political battle because it is an election year. We have the unfortunate position of having a CDC and FDA that care more about politics than anything else.

Think I am wrong? President Trump touted hydroxychloroquine as a treatment. The FDA banned hydroxychloroquine use in the USA. Now, I have seen some of the papers against hydroxychloroquine, but many of them contain insignificant information--and worse, the Lancet article panning it was retracted because the authors could not produce their data! There are several significant papers showing that hydroxychloroquine reduces the severity of COVID-19. I don't know if hydroxychloroquine is a good treatment or not, but I do know there was not enough grounds to completely ban experimentation on a drug that has been a safe treatment for malaria for years. I also know that African nations are relying on quinines to combat COVID-19. Every single African nation has half the COVID-19 case-fatality rate of any Western nation. This could be a coincidence, but without research we won't know. It is not acceptable to cancel research simply because there is some risk and preliminary results are not significant. Most research has some risk.

President Trump was given a treatment for his COVID-19, from which he recovered quickly. Less than two weeks later the FDA banned that drug. I didn't see all the information for that, but it makes me suspicious either they were trying to kill the President or they don't want others to recover that quickly.

The FDA is refusing to regulate masks. If you contract COVID-19 in a state that requires mask, you have a 1.16% greater chance of dying from it than if you live in a state that does not require COVID-19. I did the statistical analysis and this was a significant (albeit small) increase (p=0.0077236). The FDA is required by law to regulate medical devices, such as masks, but despite numerous reports of adverse effects of masks that have been filed with the FDA, they are still not regulating them for safety or effectiveness.

At the same time, the CDC flips from saying one thing to saying the exact opposite. It changes wording on things, seemingly to avoid legal action. Despite the failure of our national health institutions, Republicans and Democrats could look at the rest of the world and say, "Hey, we might be doing something wrong here." Instead, they jump on every chance they can to point fingers at the other side. They could question the CDC recommendations in light of world recommendations. They could force the FDA to regulate masks, but they don't. Why? Well, because this is an election year, and people dying at massive rates compared to anywhere else in the world makes good political ammo. But if you are voting for a political party instead of a person simply because you believe that political party will reduce or stop the COVID-19 pandemic, you are voting for unfounded reasons.

The Nation of Hate: Juneteenth and The Anti-Trump Democrat Agenda (as written by a person who doesn't particularly like President Trump)

This is a very controversial post, but I feel my experiences need to be told so others can see that these groups who claim to want "change" are actually filled with very hateful, closed-minded people.

I have a friend, I'll call her Alice. I normally don't believe in identifying race, but in this case it is important to what I am about to say: She is African-American, but she is NOT a representative of the African-American race even though her parents and skin tone place her in it. Now, I want to stop right here and explain I have many friends across many "races." I do not believe in race. We are all descendants of Noah, and we all need to treat each other like brothers and sisters.

Unfortunately, Alice does not feel this way. I met Alice a long time ago when we used to coach together at the YMCA. I have been friends with her for some time on FB, but she has not gone out of her way to contact me--I don't know if she has even looked at my feed in many years the way I have looked at hers. She became a political activist a while back and is deeply involved in the Democrat Party. Since Juneteenth and Tulsa were on few people's minds prior to President Trump's announcement of a rally there, and since Juneteenth only represents the end of Civil War slavery in Texas, it is my opinion that the recent strong push for a federal holiday that is "solely African-American" as opposed to the evil "Columbus Day" (ironically free Africans were also involved in the discovery of America), is the direct result of the media and Democrats to paint President Trump as a bigger racist than Joe Biden. Apparently, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day no longer exists or is important--which is sad in my opinion since the gaining of civil rights did far more for Africans (and all races) in this country than the day the Texas slaves gained their freedom.

Now, as a political activist, Alice of course posted about how great Juneteenth was and how it should be a federal holiday. Prior to this year, few people had heard of it. In fact, the only reason we have heard about it is because the media hates our President and so do social activists--and Joe Biden's inability to control his mouth probably didn't help.

Keep in mind that I did not vote for President Trump nor do I think he is doing a good job as President. But, that is not a reason to suppress his voice or persecute him on levels even greater than what the Republicans did during President Obama's terms.

Juneteenth is the day that the slaves were set free in Texas. It was a holiday the ex-slaves created and celebrated only in Texas until their freedoms were taken away again in the early 1900s. It got started because two months after the Civil War ended, federal troops came to Texas to force the Texans to give up their slaves (they should have freed them in April of that year when news reached them that the Civil War was over and they had lost). It did not free all slaves. For example, Kentucky (a state that did not join the Confederacy but that had slaves) did not free 65,000 of its slaves until December 7th.

Juneteenth is also not the only celebration of emancipation. August 8th is Emancipation Day in Tennessee and Appalachia, for example. But let's be realistic, African Americans were not freed until the Supreme Court gave them the right to vote March 24th, 1969. For this reason, when Alice posted about Juneteenth with how it set slaves free and it should be celebrated, I responded that there were better days (March 24, July 2) that celebrated true freedom for African Americans.

And I was shot down and accused of attacking her. She said I needed to explain myself, so I did. What I said was in depth and some of her followers agreed with me.

Surprisingly, she invited me to a group that was talking about Juneteenth.

I admit, I was dumb. I trusted in the friendship we once had. I thought she invited me because she really wanted to hear my ideas and have a discussion. I was wrong--and this is why I am writing this because I want people to know that you can no longer trust all your friends on Facebook--even the ones you know.

I was slightly confused at the invitation, but I didn't realize it was a trap. I joined the Zoom group and was partitioned into a separate small group. The leader asked a question and allowed everyone to answer it--except for me. I was having technical difficulty and could only use chat, so I began typing my response: I didn't support Juneteenth as a federal holiday because I didn't feel it represented true Emancipation. I pointed out that Texas should have freed its slaves two months earlier. I pointed out that slaves were not truly free.

The leader of the group finally looked at my comments and said it was Two years (apparently thinking I was talking about the Emancipation Proclamation and not the day the Civil War ended), and that I was just the type of ignorant person they were trying to fight against.

I tried to get her attention with the chat but from that moment onward, anything I typed was ignored... except by Alice's daughter (who was also in the group), Kay. Kay began by informing me again of my ignorance. When I made a statement in group chat that I believed Fred Hampton was "the poster child for police brutality." I was told I had offended Kay by making this statement. As I continued talking with her privately, she stated that African Americans could not do big things only small ones. I tried to encourage her by telling her that those in the Civil Rights movement--which was completely created, organized, and executed by African Americans DID achieve big things. I was again told I was being offensive.

I was so glad when it was done. I almost quit sooner, but I wasn't sure if that would be rude. The next day, I saw yet another support Juneteenth post by Alice talking about things people "learned" and things people "should learn" about African American history. At that point it hit me--most of these things people "should learn" were not only about Juneteenth but also about the Tulsa riots (I have given a brief explanation at the end of this). This wasn't about getting a new federal holiday--this was about pushing an Anti-Trump Democrat agenda. When I realized what she was doing, I added in a truth in the comments that followed in her style of "you learned" but "you should have learned." Mine said "You learned that slavery ended June 19, 1865, but 65,000 slaves in Kentucky were not set free until December 7th, 1865.

It was at that point that she dug into me in a private message. She said I owed her and her daughter an apology for offending them. She, who went to a top private college an whose daughter is at that same college (Kay stated in the group she got into the college because she was "black" and that made her angry... ???), she started talking about my "white privilege." I grew up in the same neighborhood. I have struggled my whole life. Because of financial issues, I went to a state college that is not ranked in the top 50 even though I graduated Valedictorian of my class and had high SATs. I have been pulled over because police officers "didn't recognize my car." I have feared because I have driven in backwoods places in the middle of the night, and I knew I could be killed and never found if someone decided they did not like me. What is this white privilege?

It was at that point, when I saw that she felt she could attack me and shame me and say whatever she wanted to me, but I had better apologize to her and her daughter for some offense I am still not clear about, that I started to realize this was not my friend. The politics of the world had changed her into something evil. I did not immediately reply, but I felt that if I had truly offended them for agreeing that African Americans are the subject of police brutality and have been for years, for telling Kay to not write herself into a box of low achievement, for stating the truth, then, yes, I should apologize, but what about all the offense they flung at me? I could not believe this was done (at this point) in malice. Perhaps just as I was ignorant (and still am) as to what offended them, they did not know how offensive they were being to me.

I spent the evening carefully crafting a response that included much of the above and began "If I offended you and your daughter I truly am sorry, but the group leader, your daughter and you have also offended me." As I got on Facebook the next day and sent her my reply privately, I saw that she had publicly posted her private message to me on her page, tagged me in it, and was collecting congratulations from all her friends about what an arrogant racist I was. Again, anything I said was silenced. My side of the story was not being told.

After my carefully crafted response had been sent, and I saw what she had done, I privately messaged her one last time, "Alice, I am unfriending you. I have been abused all my life, and I do not have to take abuse from my friends. I can see you are no longer the woman who stood on her own two feet, but you have become the woman who stands on the heads of your friends to gain position."

I unfriended her but she of course came back with something even nastier in private message before I could block her.

I am all for equality. I am all for police reform. I am all for government programs that help the poor become self-sufficient. But I am not going to apologize just because of my skin color--and in this case, Alice never told me how what I said offended her, so I can only assume that being "white" was my sole offense. Alice never apologized for the offense she caused me, and chided me because I "asked her to apologize" in her last hateful message (even though I did not ask for such an apology--I merely wanted her to see how she had hurt me).

I now know that Alice is a bully. She believes it is okay to silence anyone if they do not have the same opinions as her. She believes it is okay to tell people they are ignorant without listening to what they say. She believes it is okay to oppress other people--as long as she is not the one being oppressed.

So, now she will go back to her friends and talk about the racist white woman who expected an apology after I did nothing but offend her by telling her the truth. Unlike me, Alice will use my name and slander it across FaceBook and any other platform. I am thankful though that Alice and her equally hateful daughter are not a representative of either African Americans or even most members of the Democrat party. The problem is that when most white people meet Alice, they are not going to like her. She may be the first or only African American they have come in contact with on a personal level. As she tramples over their rights, calls people ignorant, and expects everyone who questions or disagrees with her statements to apologize, she is going to hurt any cause she champions.

Don't be Alice. Listen to the views of others--no matter what their skin tone. Treat others as equals. And if you run into Alice--run the other way. Any truth you try to impart to her or others listening will only be silenced by a round of bullying, shaming, and slander.

__________________________________________________________
The Tulsa Riots. I am taking my information from the source linked above and from a PDF of a first hand, African-America account of the riots, which I read and which you should be able to find online (Parrish, Mary E. Jones, ed. Events of the Tulsa Disaster). The Tulsa disaster as the author calls it was the result of massive misunderstanding during a racially charged, segregated time. A bunch of poor white and black farmers had lost their jobs and flocked into Tulsa--with both competing for jobs and with a rich black section in the city (Black Wall Street), racial tensions were high.

Add to that the fact that a white person had been lynched from the police station in the past month, and everyone was worried about justice. In this hot bed--in which riots had been predicted--a white girl and a black boy (please understand before you cry racist that it is my understanding these two were both teenagers, hence my calling them "girl" and "boy") ride up a couple floors together in an elevator... and he steps on her foot. She, for whatever reason, claimed she was assaulted. He was thrown in the jail. (Now, I want to say right here that he survived this mess that was about to happen and went to trial. She did not even show up at the trial and all charges were dismissed. Justice was served, despite the very valid doubts it would be. I tell you this here, because I didn't want you worrying about the boy.)

Now, he was in jail, and the NEWSPAPERS ran an editorial saying he should be lynched. Well, the sheriff moved the boy to a place he could better defend him against lynching. That night hundreds of white men showed up and surrounded the jail. At the same time, a concerned group of citizens from the black community went to the jailhouse to see if they could help. A black deputy came out and told them that the boy would be protected and they should go home or they might make things ugly. They complied. However, when the story ran through the black community they did not trust with all those people that the boy would be protected. Being a white boy was lynched within the past month, this was probably justified to some extent, but at the same time, what they did made it worse.

They got up an armed group of men who wanted to go down and support the police. By this time, thousands of white men (some armed, some not) were outside. And a bunch of armed black men showed up to the party. A white police officer came out this time and started arguing with the black men and telling them to go home. He then tried to take the gun away from one of the men, and in the struggle for it, it of course went off... and that is how the riot started. Those in the thousands of white men gathered who had brought their guns began shooting at the black men. The black men, defended themselves as they made their way back to their neighborhood.

The woman recounting the event says it was as if she was in the French war zone instead of in a neighborhood in Oklahoma. All night they shot back and forth over railroad tracks, and the next day, the white people brought two machine guns to the party. Machine guns are nasty. This is why they are outlawed. One machine gun pelted the front of the neighborhood where the armed men defended it. The other was set up behind, pelting the people who tried to flee. Cropdusters flew overhead with pilots who reigned down bullets and helped direct the battle. As the white people advanced, they burned almost everything. A National Guardsman apparently lost his life trying to stop the machine gun in the back. The police were useless and it was only when the National Guard was called in that the carnage stopped.

When the people who had lived in Black Wall Street came back after the National Guard had gotten control, their homes were burnt to the ground. The city quickly passed a "fire ordinance" that forbid people from rebuilding their homes. The black people were fed by the YMCA and cared for by the Red Cross, but they had to wear special identification because the National Guard did not let anyone into the neighborhood without it. I can only assume this was to protect them, but residents saw it as further outrage.

Psychology Today Breaks Many Ethical Standards

I recently read an article here in Psychology Today. In the past, I have considered articles on this website to be slightly biased, but I have used them to gather general information and as springboards for other research. However, this article is concerning on many levels and it shows the depths that media of any kind has sunk to in trying to affect presidential race outcomes.

(1) If the President were under the care of a mental health provider, that provider could not release ANY information about his diagnosis to the public unless subpoenaed by a court. Mental health professionals can lose their license if the violate patient confidentiality.

(2) The article claims that 70,000 unnamed mental health professionals have "diagnosed" the President without even seeing him. This is another very unprofessional thing to do. In addition to this "diagnosis," they have decided to not only discuss it with their colleagues, using the President's name, but also to publish an article about it.

I am not a President Trump fan. He is obnoxious, undignified, and uncouth. He raised taxes on the poor while lowering them for the rich. He has had what I feel are brief moments of genius, but 90% of his presidency and the decisions he has made and actions he has taken have been offensive and upset me greatly. But, when the media is trying so extremely hard to try and convince me the President is somehow "dangerous" or like "Hitler," when I for a fact know that President Trump is nothing like Hitler (based on extensive historical research and talking to people who lived under Hitler's regime), I begin to wonder what they are so scared of?

As an independent, I am going to suffer for the next four years under whomever is elected in November, but I am most certainly NOT going to choose someone simply because the media has made unfounded claims (and in this case claims that should have every one of those 70,000 professionals as well as the article's author's licenses revoked) trying to scare me away from his/her opponent. In fact, when they make these claims that are clearly scare tactics, it makes me want to vote for President Trump even more in November, if I could bring myself to stomach it. But whether or not I vote for him, I can tell you that in no way would I vote for Joe Biden. I refuse to vote for someone that the media tells me I have to vote for.

The Problems With Mayor Pete for President

When Pete Buttigieg announced he was running for president, I thought it was a joke. Locals went crazy (and are still going crazy)--"We know him!!!" 

Now, I certainly wasn't excited when Pence was given the vice-presidency. I felt he had ridden the wave of his predecessor and he also was weak on some things that he should not have been. Nothing irritates me more than a wishy-washy leader. 

But now we have "Mayor Pete" making a bid for the presidency and that boarders on ludicrous. I remember when Mayor Buttigieg was first elected (make no mistake, he wasn't "Mayor Pete" until his run for the presidency). It was 2011, the middle of the Recession, and he announced everyone on the city council was going to get a raise. My husband hadn't had a raise in several years and the city council of South Bend was getting one. The city GDP had already started an upward trend after the depths of 2009, but after Mayor Pete was elected, it dipped again. Now it is up, but nowhere near pre-recession rates and it isn't set to get back there any time soon. "Mayor Pete" has continued to give his inner circle raises, though with the most going to potential supporters.

He also hired people to do his job. He didn't feel he should personally talk with the head of the police department so a liaison did that for him. With so much support, it was no wonder he was able to serve active duty as an intelligence officer in Afghanistan. The city was already running itself. 

Another thing to keep in mind is that South Bend statistics are usually combined with those of Mishawaka. South Bend is the 4th largest city in Indiana, but Mishawaka is the 2nd largest retail center (and South Bend is not even close to being first). Mishawaka has a bad section, but that is comparable to some of the decent sections of South Bend. Mishawaka and its surrounding town/communities improve South Bend's statistics, but should not be attributed to Mayor Buttigieg since each has its own government.

How safe has Mayor Pete made South Bend (keep in mind it is barely large enough to be a city with only a little over 100,000 people). Well, it is safer than 3% of other cities. There are 10 violent crimes  and almost 50 property crimes per every 1000 people. For comparison, Mishawaka has 2 violent crimes per 1000 people. As you can see on the map in the link, most of those violent crimes occur on or near the South Bend/Mishawaka border. If we look at other cities that have almost the exact same population (+/- 1000 people) across the US, Renton WA, Vista CA, Las Cruces NM, Woodbridge NJ, Davenport IA, Edison NJ, and Lakewood NJ, South Bend has more violent crime than all of them, in most cases South Bend's violent crime is double that of these cities. South Bend's violent crime rate is equal to that of Chicago and their property damage rate is higher than that of Chicago. 

But everybody agrees "Mayor Pete" made some visible changes to the city. For example, he decided to slow down the streets of South Bend. He stated that people passing through town who are forced to go slower will now stop and visit shops. In my opinion, most people traveling will simply take the bypass around the city. The South Bend Tribune did a nice before and after drive-thru showing the change to the streets only added about 5 minutes drive time one way. However, they did this comparison at a time when there was practically no traffic. People who live here now avoid downtown South Bend like the plague because it is bumper to bumper traffic during the rush (and no passing lanes to get around the crush). In many cases you are making left hand turns at your own risk. Prior to the change we had 3 lanes of traffic going one direction for every 2 lanes we now have. The mayor called this return to old-fashioned two-way streets with landscaped dividers "Smart streets." I will give the mayor this--people avoid downtown so much that it is now easy to find a parking spot. He may counter, "But I added parking spots!" However, he added parking spots just before entering the main downtown area and those are always abandoned. If I wanted to go to the county-city building and get a close spot before the street change, it could take up to 10 minutes of circling the block. Now, I don't even have to go around once despite the same number of parking spots there.

What has Mayor Buttigieg done for South Bend? I give him full credit for bringing expensive apartment housing complexes into the city. Prior to Mayor Buttigieg, no one would have picked downtown South Bend as an ideal place for gentrification. South Bend already has several expensive neighborhoods in the heart of the city. Many are bohemian historical neighborhoods. Living there means you will be subject to more crime, but the neighborhoods are exclusive. Mayor Buttigieg took this idea and ran with it- he was able to attract several real estate investment companies to the area. Downtown South Bend storefronts are still mostly abandoned, but there are also several upscale restaurants there now. Most of the apartments that have already been built are still not full even though it has been a couple years and it meant selling off city property, but they are there. Who knows what will happen in the next 5 -10 years? But there certainly hasn't been a dramatic turnaround that everyone seems to be bragging about and attributing to a mayor was given the best chance of success since he took office during a worldwide recovery from recession.

Mayor Pete follows the standard Democrat platform-there is nothing new or interesting about him. He is running on the platform of "I am a LGB... tolerant Mike Pence." I am sure his presidential bid is actually a dream to be vice president since he seems to be targeting barbs at Pence more than Trump. But as one homosexual friend said, "Being homosexual doesn't make you a good president" (or vice-president). To make matters worse, he is playing on the "gay gene" "I was born this way" platform. There is no gay gene. Period. In 1993, "research" was published that a male gay gene was found on the X chromosome. This research was later debunked. In 15 years, not only has that "research" been debunked, but also no other gene has been proposed to cause homosexuality even male homosexuality. In fact, twin studies show we are more likely to find a "divorce" gene than a "homosexual" gene. If you are homosexual-that is your choice. I don't tell people about my sex life and I don't want to know about yours. If Mayor Pete wants to run on a homosexual platform, why not explain why everyone should be allowed to have consensual sex with any adult they want instead of saying he couldn't help the way he is?

Mayor Buttigieg is not Mike Pence. Mike Pence fell into his position and rode its wave. I don't think he had any higher aspirations than governor--he might not have even aspired that high. he is perfectly happy to remain in Trump's shadow. Pete Buttigieg has extremely high aspirations. Little changes in Indiana- after Mayor Buttigieg's first term, it was no surprise he was re-elected. Only after homosexual marriage became the popular thing when it was before the Supreme Court did he came out publicly, find a partner (he was single before that time), and marry his new partner. Mayor Buttigieg states that as he was growing up he wished there was a "pill" to take away his homosexual desires. Well, there are plenty of unofficial treatment programs for people who don't want to be LGB... anymore. But I think Mayor Buttigieg does want to be homosexual right now. That is the one thing that he is betting will get him into the White House- that and is evangelical "conversion."

So what of that conversion? Well, having lived in the area during Mayor Buttigieg's political reign, I have not heard anything about his religion or religious views in the media until he made his bid for president. Now, he is claiming he was raised Catholic, but is currently an evangelical Christian--a member of the Episcopal Church. His religious influences are "the early St. Augustine, James Martin, and Garry Willis." But, "Mayor Pete" is not very well versed in his religion apparently. First, the Episcopal Church is not evangelical. Granted, the leap from Catholic to Episcopalian is easy since there is little difference between the two. That is probably why Mayor Buttigieg made the change--people can ask him questions about his faith and he will probably get the right answer, but he needed to move a little father from his comfort zone if he wanted to be evangelical. The other problem is his religious influences... they are all Catholic. St. Augustine of Canterbury is the Episcopal saint (i.e. not the "early" one, St. Augustine of Hippo who wrote "Confessions"). I suppose he could say that was a misprint by the Washington Post, but why name two other catholic writers: a Jesuit priest and a Catholic historian? There is nothing wrong with being Catholic, but when you are a Catholic claiming to be an evangelical Christian simply to get the nomination, there is a serious problem. Where is Thomas Beckett? Or William Tyndale? Or even Julian of Norwich or any of the other lesser known Episcopalian saints? If you are going to be running on the platform that your faith is better than someone else's, you should know what your faith is.

The 2016 American Election Tragedy

The biggest tragedy about this election is NOT that the Democrat candidate is Hillary Clinton (a person who has no regard for the laws of this nation and thinks she is above them) and the Republican candidate is Donald Trump (a person who is guaranteed to only make decisions that benefit himself)—although that is definitely a tragedy big enough to hang your head in shame when people ask if you are an American.

 

No, the biggest tragedy is that 90% of the people who step into the pole booth on Tuesday will believe that those are the only two candidates from whom they can choose. So depressing was that thought to me, that I almost considered not voting at all in this election. Now, for many of you, not voting is a common thing. For me, I have only missed two elections in which I could vote in my entire life. Last year, we moved on October 30—that means that I would have been voting for local representation in an area where I no longer lived if I had chosen to vote, so I didn't. There was also one election in an "off year" (we only vote for three years in Indiana and then take a year off) that was simply a referendum that I had no opinion about.

 

I have since revisited my decision not to vote. This is the year when a third party SHOULD be able to overturn the other two. The Republicans and Democrats have been in league with each other for years to the point where they have really stopped representing the ideals on which their respective parties were founded. They have long stopped representing "We the people…" The instead represent whomever gives their party the most money. This is not me, and I would be willing to bet it is also not you. The top two parties have also ensured that other parties do not make it on the ballots because they are the ones who write the laws for who can make it on the ballot. Some laws they have concocted are literally so restrictive in their wording it would be impossible to get on the ballot unless you are the Republican or Democratic nominee.

 

The top two are also broken because they allow ANYONE to vote in their primaries. That means I, as an independent who frequently votes across party lines, can go down and vote for the Democrat nominee without even remotely wanting to be in the Democrat party. In my state (Indiana), I do have to choose whether I want to vote for the Republican or Democrat and I cannot vote for both, but the one time I did it I was not given the chance to vote for the Libertarian, which tells me their primaries must be more selective. Some states allow you to vote in both the Democrat and Republican primaries (so I have heard). Why? Shouldn't only registered party members be voting in primaries? Yes, they should if you truly want a representative of that party.

 

However, as I said before, the Republicans and Democrats are only one party. A vote for one, is a vote for the other. Both support their top donors. I literally have somewhere in my garage a signed letter from a Senator stating he would not ever vote for something and then a printout showing he did in fact vote for that thing. In the next election, this senator advertised that he did not vote for that thing (but his voting record showed different). Thankfully, he is no longer in office, but I am pretty sure he is not alone in his deception especially since both of Indiana's current senators have advertised they would never vote for X and then turned around and voted for it! When was the last time you actually checked the voting record of the people you vote for?

 

So, I will be at the poles but I will be voting for a third party. There are actually some really SOLID choices this year. I am encouraging you (1) to please share this with all your friends and (2) please do a little research and check these people out; you may find you support their party beliefs more than you support your traditional Democrats or Republicans. DO NOT BUY INTO THE HYPE THAT THERE CAN ONLY BE TWO PARTIES. The reason that statement was first made historically is because by the nature of our elections (the person with the most votes wins even if the most votes are 25% of the total votes), only one or two parties will make the voting laws and thereby make it difficult for a third party to get in. That is the purpose of this post. If you live in a state that has barred third parties from being on the ballot, WRITE IN one of these candidate names below—unless you truly want to vote for Trump or Clinton (keep in mind though, a vote for Clinton may actually be a vote for Trump if he can get a felony tacked to her by January). 

 

LIBERTARIAN: Gary Johnson (former governor of New Mexico) Libertarians believe that states (and ideally individuals) should make most of the laws governing America. They see the Constitution as the ultimate document for determining law. Traditionally, they support abortion, but they believe a person who disagrees with abortion should not be forced to pay for it (in other words they would remove government funding but allow it to remain legal). This candidate does have a vested interest in the marijuana industry (he used to be a CEO). He supports legalizing it at the federal level and allowing states to decide- similar to what our current president has supported. Despite what I have heard a lot of Democrats say, Libertarians are more aligned with their actual beliefs. (Democrats tend to tell me Libertarians are just Republican but this is not true.)

 

CONSTITUTION: Darrell Castle The constitution party supports the Constitution, but they see the Bible as another important document in determining law. This party is most aligned with what the Republican party believes. This candidate is pro-life. He believes the U. S. should exit from the U.N. and he would like to get rid of the Federal Reserve. Although the Constitution party is on the ballot in more than 20 states, plan on writing his name in if you want to vote for him.

 

GREEN: Dr. Jill Stein The Green Party believes in putting the environment first (big surprise, I know) and where the environment is silent, they tend to be Democrat in thinking. Their platform revolves around protecting the environment. This candidate supports public ownership of all energy sources, banning pesticides and other toxins, ending fossil fuel extraction that is disruptive to the environment, labeling and getting rid of GMOs. She would like to outlaw insurance but create national healthcare, and she supports any form of abortion.

 

There is actually a long list of write-in candidates that you can vote for, but these are the top three. A few others (who are on the ballot in 5-20 states) to research are:

 

(No party) Evan McMullin

Party of Socialism and Liberation Gloria LaRiva

Reform Party Rocky de la Fuente

Socialist Party USA Emidio "Mimi" Soltysik

Socialist Workers Party Alyson Kennedy (that is the official platform website, I couldn't find a specific webpage for her. Ballotopedia has a clearer presentation of the party platform but I don't know how accurate it is.)